Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox

Why haven't we resigned Branch?

  • sakes
  • Five Star General
  • Rating: 3.2/5 this site
  • 1058 posts this site

Posted: 11/21/2012 12:01 PM

Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


Have we signed him yet?  With Gronk out, Brady has the reliable Welker but his other targets are Hernandez and Lloyd.  He and Lloyd haven’t really been in synch yet and Brady and Hernandez haven’t developed their timing this season.  I’d think that signing Deion Branch would make sense here. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/21/2012 9:09 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 




  We also have Edelman!!!!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 11:19 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


I think Branch had a hamstring injury and if they cut him soon after, that probably means it would have kept him inactive for quite a few weeks.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/23/2012 5:34 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


Eagles signed salas off waivers, that could make branchs return slighty more likely

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/23/2012 6:15 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


"We also have Edelman!!!!"
.
Hopefully, - anyone heard anything about him???
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/23/2012 6:28 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


I've seen no official word on Edelman, but he was on Twitter most of the afternoon, so he can at least see straight enough to type 140 characters.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/23/2012 8:10 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


I got to say they most likely haven't signed Branch because they just don't need him anymore.  I know I know,  dumb thing to say but,

He takes up a roster spot that could and should be held by a future WR.  The Pats are pat with the WR's they have.   Hernandez is back,  Edelman is playing well, Lloyd is playing well and there is always Welker.  Hopefully the Gronk Monster will be back before the superbowl.  They have some low end WR's that should be cultivated.  Branch was just an extra body.  He won't be signed by any other team so if it turns out that they have more injuries, he'll still be available without taking up that roster spot.

Branch has played well over the years but he isn't the essential cog in the wheel any more.  Let's let the guy retire.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/23/2012 9:21 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


I'm with Dok, when/if he's healthy enough he's back. 

Edelman has to have a concussion after that lick.  They do have 10 days to recover however.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/23/2012 11:45 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


The Eagles taking Salas may be something they didn't expect, BB may have wanted to get him back on the PS. The Jets also put in a claim, but the Eagles won out by having a worse record.

So, on paper, they're down to 4 WR's - Edelman, Welker, Lloyd, Slater.

OK, make that 3 WR's (love Slater on ST, hate him on offense).

But ...
  • Hernandez can play like a big WR
  • McD has been lining Vereen up outside
  • Woody can double as a slot reciever

So they can get by, but one more injury to one of the above 6 guys and they start having a depth problem. If Edelman is out with a concussion, then that problem started Thursday.

Salas being claimed also may open the door for Branch coming back. The good thing about Branch is he can contribute the first game he's activated. 

Now, curiously, Gaffney just got suspended for 2 games for "violating an undisclosed league policy" and was instantly cut but MIA and can be claimed. This happened today - which is pretty feakish timing, all things considered.

Stallworth I think is also available.

So this is a problem they can patch if they need to for the next month or so.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/24/2012 8:11 AM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 


Branch was on pace to match Ocho's numbers from last year.  So they didn't need him.  But it's true he can come back in and play right away if they bring him back.  They're kinda short handed right now, so they probably should do something.  It's uncertain if Edelman will be able to play next week.

It would have been nice to see what Salas could do.  I have no idea why BB needed to cut him and sign an OL from the practice squad before Thursday's game, only to list that OL as inactive for the game.  You could have listed Salas as inactive too and not lost him to another team.  Sometimes I think BB makes these kind of roster moves all the time just because he's bored.
**
**
“I don’t have a response. If I had a response to everything that people said about me or us, then I’d be busy all freaking day responding to things." -- Tom Brady, September 2007
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/26/2012 7:34 PM

Re: Why haven't we resigned Branch? 



dokgonzo wrote: 

Now, curiously, Gaffney just got suspended for 2 games for "violating an undisclosed league policy" and was instantly cut but MIA and can be claimed. This happened today - which is pretty feakish timing, all things considered.


Busy day, hadn't read that one yet.  I'd take Gaffney over Branch.  I don't think he's lost as much.
Reply | Quote